Skip to main content

Overview of the Internet Multicast Routing Architecture
draft-ietf-mboned-routingarch-12

Yes

(Lisa Dusseault)
(Ron Bonica)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(Chris Newman)
(David Ward)
(Jon Peterson)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Sam Hartman)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert
No Objection
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2007-10-04) Unknown
> Cisco's proprietary CGMP [CGMP] provides a solution where the routers
> notify the switches, but also allows the switches to snoop IGMP
> packets to enable faster notification of hosts no longer wishing to
> receive a group.  Fast leave behaviour support for IGMPv3 hasn't been
> implemented.  Due to IGMP report suppression in IGMPv1 and IGMPv2,
> multicast is still flooded to ports which were once members of a
> group as long as there is at least one receiver on the link.
> Flooding restrictions are done based on multicast MAC addresses.
> IPv6 is not supported.

It was unclear to me where the words "implemented" and
"supported" refer to in the above. Are these things
intrinsic to CGMP, or do they relate to Cisco's implementation.
Its not clear that you want to discussion individual
implementations in this RFC.
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Chris Newman Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2007-10-04) Unknown
The text in the document was very different than the abstract and title had me expecting.
David Ward Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2007-10-02) Unknown
Appendix A.1

First of all the RMT WG has now gone beyond specifying experimental standards. A number of the building blocks have already moved to proposed standard and the first protocol instantiations are close. 

Secondly, I think that NORM (RFC 3940) and FLUTE (3926) also should be mentioned when PGM is mentioned.
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Ross Callon Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2007-10-03) Unknown
Please add RPF to section 1.1.

Section 2.1.1 PIM-SM

While this is arguably the most important of the multicast
protocols, there is very little information about the protocol
here.  In fact, I got most of my information about PIM-SM from
comparative statements in section 2.1.2 PIM-DM.  Given its
importance, consider expanding this section.